Jan. 30 Bracketology

Through games played on Jan. 29, 2024. AQs in bold. Last Four In in italics.

1 seeds: Purdue, Connecticut, Houston, North Carolina

2 seeds: Tennessee, Wisconsin, Arizona, Marquette

3 seeds: Kansas, Creighton, Iowa State, Alabama

4 seeds: Auburn, Kentucky, Illinois, Duke

5 seeds: Baylor, Dayton, Texas Tech, San Diego State

6 seeds: BYU, Utah State, New Mexico, Oklahoma

7 seeds: Clemson, Florida Atlantic, TCU, Northwestern 

8 seeds: South Carolina, Colorado State, St. John's, Utah

9 seeds: Mississippi State, Memphis, Mississippi, Michigan State

10 seeds: Florida, Nebraska, Saint Mary's, Providence

11 seeds: Indiana State, Colorado, Cincinnati, Seton Hall, Washington State

12 seeds: Grand Canyon, Texas A&M, Texas, Princeton, McNeese State

13 seeds: Appalachian State, UC Irvine, Samford, Louisiana Tech

14 seeds: Akron, Morehead State, Drexel, Vermont

15 seeds: High Point, Eastern Washington, Youngstown State, Colgate

16 seeds: South Dakota State, Quinnipiac, Norfolk State, Eastern Kentucky, Southern, Central Connecticut State

First Four Byes: Nebraska, Providence, Colorado, Cincinnati

Last Four In: Seton Hall, Washington State, Texas A&M, Texas

First Four Out: Kansas State, Virginia, Wake Forest, Butler

Next Four Out: Virginia Tech, Boise State, Oregon, Nevada

Filling Out My Bracket Projection Pt. 2

 We are back a week later with another bracket projection and another test of my new app. If you haven’t read last week’s edition, go check it out to understand my inspiration and to get a feel of how these will go. As a recap of last time, I went 41/63 for picks overall, which is a really impressive bracket. However, I ended up with 2 out of the Final Four teams, but without a team in the championship game.

The link for the Google Sheet with my most recent bracket is here once again, this time with two brackets: one of which was filled out with my app and the other I filled out on my own volition. Again, every team that is on the line was my selection. Green means that I was right, red means that I was wrong, and the team above a team in red is the team that actually ended up winning that game. With that, let’s get right into it.

In the first pod of the Midwest Region, we’ve got Purdue (0.9895 win probability) easily over Central Connecticut, and, with the first toss-up game, we go with TCU (0.5452) as the favorite over Villanova. Our first S16 team is Purdue, who has a 0.7893 probability of making it to the Sweet 16 and a 0.7924 chance of beating TCU. Considering Purdue is 2nd in Kenpom as of this bracket projection, the algorithm is pretty high on Purdue in the pod, especially considering the code spit out Purdue with a S16 Rating of 5.3517 (again, out of 5). The code doesn’t like the second pod at all, denoted by the fact that Indiana State was actually given the nod above Creighton as the most likely team from the pod. Creighton is also likely, but they have a S16 Rating about 0.8 less than Indiana State’s. Indiana State is the 2nd most likely upset according to the code and has a probability of 0.4472 against Oklahoma, which is why I decided to choose them for the Round of 32. After I decided to go with Creighton (0.7479) over App State (even though App State is the 10th most likely upset), I went with Creighton (0.6367) over Indiana State for the Sweet Sixteen spot from this pod. However, I was wrong on both accounts, as Oklahoma ended up beating both teams in the simulation to make it to the Sweet Sixteen. For the third pod in the Midwest Region, the algorithm spits out both Alabama and Illinois as possibilities for teams from the pod. I went with Alabama (0.6692) over Saint Mary’s, even though the Gaels were the 12th most likely upset in the bracket, and I went with Illinois (0.9064) over UMass Lowell. I was wrong about Alabama, but I went Illinois (0.4620) over Alabama, which worked out in the end. The final Sweet Sixteen team from this region that I selected was Kansas, and Kansas ended up beating Colgate and Nebraska in succession to make it there in the simulation. I went with Nebraska (0.5369) over Memphis in a toss-up game, and Kansas (0.9012) over Colgate. From there, I went with Kansas over Nebraska, even though Nebraska was technically more likely according to the algorithm. However, Kansas’ 0.5926 chance of making it to the Sweet Sixteen was too good to pass up, and it worked out in the end. From there, I went with Purdue (0.7174) over Creighton and Illinois (0.5753) over Kansas because of the uncertainty of the Jayhawks’ pod. Then, I decided to go with Purdue (0.6823) over Illinois, which were all great picks. Overall, very satisfied with the Midwest Region.

With the West Region, I went against the grain a little bit. The first and last pods are normally always the easiest for the Round of 32 since it’s normally the 1- or 2-seeds and then whichever team the algorithm tells me to choose for the toss-up game, and that’s exactly what I did with the UNC-St. John’s matchup. North Carolina is clearly the favorite over Norfolk State, with a win probability of 0.9665, and St. John’s is a slight favorite over Boise State with a win probability of 0.6029. From there, I went a little crazy. North Carolina is the most likely team to make it out of this pod according to the code, but St. John’s is also likely, so I decided to ride with the Red Storm, ideally for some value points. Unfortunately, as you can see, it did not work out well for me, as UNC made a run all the way to the Final Four. With the next pod, I went with BYU (0.7614) over Grand Canyon and Duke (0.7920) over Akron, before narrowly choosing BYU (0.5387) over Duke. Duke wasn’t even listed as a likely team from this pod, so that’s why I rolled with the Cougars, and no upset alerts were flagged from this pod, so just an unlikely sequence of events. Could be worse, but since I went with St. John’s over UNC, I decided to go with BYU over St. John’s for the safe play, so I lost a Sweet Sixteen team in the first round. That’s just how the cookie crumbles sometimes. I felt no need to play it safe with BYU according to the algorithm since it was the clear favorite of the pod and there was no upset alert at all, so I felt comfortable going with St. John’s and BYU, which may have been playing with too much fire, especially considering BYU’s issue of being an alleged “computer tricker.” I performed a little better on the lower side of the West Region. I went with Clemson (0.5828) over Northwestern. Northwestern was flagged as the 5th most likely for an upset, but I went against it because their probability was below the critical point for 11-seeds. 11-seeds above a win probability of 0.4731 have historically won 61.90 percent of first round games since 2001, while 11-seeds below this probability have won only 38.81 percent of games against 6-seeds. I also went with Clemson since they were flagged as the most likely team of the very uncertain pod (one that also listed Kentucky and Northwestern as likely teams). Drexel was flagged as the 8th most likely upset, but I went with Kentucky at a 0.7742 win probability. Then, I went with Clemson (0.4396) over Kentucky with a little bit of value pick, which ended up working out. Unfortunately, the toss-up game predictor for the last pod failed, as Kansas State beat Colorado State (0.5807) for a spot in the Round of 32. I went with Arizona in back-to-back games in this pod, since they were a clear favorite for the pod (5.7082 S16 Rating), over South Dakota State (0.9638 win prob for Arizona), and over Colorado State (0.7741 win prob for Arizona; and Kansas State for that matter). As I mentioned, I went chalk for the Sweet Sixteen of the West Region, with BYU (0.6609) over St. John’s (neither of which made it to the Sweet Sixteen) and Arizona (0.7611) over Clemson. From there, Arizona (0.6128) was the easy pick of the bunch. In hindsight, I would’ve stuck with an Arizona pick for the Final Four team out of this region. Arizona had a F4 prob of 0.3629, while UNC had a F4 prob of 0.2546. I will say, the pick of St. John’s over North Carolina was a little ambitious, but sometimes you have to roll the dice.

In the South Region, we started with Houston (0.9919) over Jackson State and Texas A&M (0.5697) over Seton Hall in the toss-up game. Unfortunately, the algorithm was not prepared for a run by the Pirates, which is exactly what I ensued. I played the numbers and went with Houston (0.8389) over Texas A&M. Seton Hall overcame even greater odds, as Houston had a 0.8770 probability of beating Seton Hall according to Kenpom numbers. With the upset over Houston, Seton Hall took out one of my Final Four teams. Not great stuff. I think even more infuriating is the fact that I had a separate Big East 8/9 seed to make a run and upset a 1 seed in the previous region in St. John’s. Sometimes you can’t get ‘em all. From there, we went San Diego State (0.7206) over McNeese State (which missed) and Baylor (0.7386) over UC Irvine (which hit). McNeese State and UC Irvine flagged the 7th most and 4th most likely upsets respectively, which essentially means that I didn’t want to have the winner of this pod go farther than the Sweet Sixteen. I went with San Diego State (0.4388) over Baylor, which was probably the best pick, even in hindsight. San Diego State had a S16 Rating of 3.6779, followed by Baylor at 3.2072. San Diego State also had a 0.3627 probability of reaching the Sweet Sixteen, while Baylor had a 0.4567 probability. At the end of the day, not the biggest issue with this region (cough cough Seton Hall), so we move. Utah State had the worst S16 Rating out of the entire pod and Colorado (0.5847) had the most likely upset in the field. Give me the Buffaloes. Auburn (0.8615) had the best S16 Rating, reaching a rating of 5.3261, so I went with them over Louisiana Tech. I genuinely thought about Auburn (0.6871) and Colorado long and hard. Give me the Buffaloes part 2? From the algorithm, I went with Auburn in this instance, but you can see in my raw selections, I actually went with Colorado and that was the move. Colorado ended up upsetting both Utah State and Auburn in back-to-back rounds to make it to the second weekend in this simulation. In the final pod, we went with Florida Atlantic (0.5982) over South Carolina (against my better judgment) and then Tennessee (0.9343) over High Point. Now, here’s where we run into a little issue with the S-curve I put together on Monday night (technically Tuesday morning) at 2am. Since South Carolina actually beat Florida Atlantic, we have an SEC matchup (one that will have happened twice by this point) in the second round. So uh. Anyways, Vols (0.7211) on (Rocky) top over Florida Atlantic (and South Carolina for that matter) for the Sweet Sixteen. I went Houston (0.8042) over San Diego State, which actually turned out to be Seton Hall over Baylor (??), and Tennessee (0.5152) over Auburn, which ended up being Colorado instead. With an easier Elite Eight matchup, the Vols fly into the Final Four over Seton Hall. I had Houston (0.6517) over Tennessee, which would have had a 0.5290 chance of making it to the Final Four had they made it with my selected teams. Better than a flip of the coin for the Cougars. Wasn’t meant to be.

Finally, we round it off with the East Region. We go with Connecticut (0.9512) over Fairfield with an in-state matchup and Michigan State (0.5650) over New Mexico in the ensuing toss-up game. Michigan State surprisingly has the most likely chance out of the pod, but I go with the Huskies (0.6164) instead, which works out well after the Lobos take down Sparty in Brooklyn. Both Princeton (6th) and Samford (3rd) are flagged for upsets over Iowa State and Dayton. I decide to go with the most likely upset (Samford; 0.2654) and to ride with the most likely team from the pod, which ends up being the Cyclones (0.6897 over Princeton, 0.8233 over Samford). This all works out according to plan, truly showing the power of gut-reactions and stronger information from the algorithm. A faltering Rebels team is flagged as the 9th most likely upset. I decide against it. Utah (0.6319) over Ole Miss and Marquette (0.8548) over Eastern Washington. Marquette and Utah are both likely teams from the pod according to the algorithm, but I ride with the Golden Eagles (0.5896 over Utah), who have the most likely chance of reaching the Sweet Sixteen from the pod at 0.5419. The final pod in the East Region is… volatile. To say the least. The algorithm spits out Texas Tech (3.3617), Wisconsin (3.1160), and Mississippi State (3.0520) as likely teams in the pod, and with a pod as volatile as this one, I quickly realize (and hope) that the Sweet Sixteen team from this pod won’t make it much further. Texas Tech (0.5271) is barely given the nod over Mississippi State and Wisconsin (0.8848) is chosen over Youngstown State, despite the 11th most likely upset being flagged for the Penguins. From there, we go with Texas Tech (0.3893), because why not? And it ends up being right in the simulation. From the Sweet Sixteen on, we go Connecticut (0.5930) over Iowa State and Marquette (0.5780) over Texas Tech. Connecticut and Texas Tech face off in the Elite Eight, but we still maintain the Huskies as our Final Four team, after they defeat the Red Raiders.

At this point, I’m happy with 2 Final Four teams. I think having 3 Final Four teams could be where I would seal the deal and be extremely happy with my bracket, but there is some solace to be taken in the fact that I got the correct seeds, with 3 1-seeds and 1 2-seed. Heartbreaking to have Purdue lose to Tennessee to overcome a Maui Invitational loss, for both my bracket and as I would imagine as a fan.

All in all, we had less correct picks, but with Purdue in the national championship game, we ended up with more points in this simulation. Like I said, I would be more happy with 3 correct Final Four teams, as I would imagine that would give me a significantly better chance. I’ll have to crunch the numbers in the coming weeks to see if that’s actually true. 

That’s it for the second edition of filling out my bracket projection. Hoping to improve as time goes on. If you have any questions, hit me up @TSBBracketology on Twitter.

Jan. 23 Bracketology

Through games played on Jan. 21, 2024. AQs in bold. Last Four In in italics.

1 seeds: Purdue, Connecticut, Houston, North Carolina

2 seeds: Arizona, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Kansas

3 seeds: Auburn, Illinois, Marquette, Kentucky

4 seeds: Creighton, Dayton, Baylor, Duke

5 seeds: Oklahoma, San Diego State, BYU, Iowa State

6 seeds: Utah, Alabama, Utah State, Clemson

7 seeds: Colorado State, Florida Atlantic, Texas Tech, Memphis 

8 seeds: St. John's, Texas A&M, Villanova, New Mexico

9 seeds: Seton Hall, Michigan State, TCU, Boise State

10 seeds: Mississippi State, South Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas State

11 seeds: Northwestern, Cincinnati, Wake Forest, Colorado, Mississippi, Saint Mary's

12 seeds: Princeton, Indiana State, Grand Canyon, McNeese State

13 seeds: Samford, Appalachian State, UC Irvine, Akron

14 seeds: Louisiana Tech, Drexel, UMass Lowell, Eastern Washington

15 seeds: High Point, Youngstown State, Colgate, South Dakota State

16 seeds: Fairfield, Norfolk State, Eastern Kentucky, Western Illinois, Jackson State, Central Connecticut State

First Four Byes: South Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas State, Northwestern

Last Four In: Cincinnati, Wake Forest, Colorado, Mississippi

First Four Out: Gonzaga, Syracuse, Oregon, Nevada

Next Four Out: Providence, Georgia, Texas, Ohio State

Using Historical Tournament Trends to Fill Out My Bracket Projection

Over winter break, I was fascinated by an article written by Will Warren (@statsbywill on Twitter) that used historic trends and stats to best pick the 2023 NCAA Tournament. I would recommend to take a read through if you're interested, and he also wrote articles for 2021 and 2022 (both of which are linked in his article), but his picks from 2023 particularly stood out to me, especially with context from what happened during the tournament.

While he did have Houston over Purdue in the national championship, his Final Four was rounded off by both San Diego State and UConn. Obviously, those two teams were in last year’s national championship, and having picked San Diego State over the likes of Alabama, Arizona, and Baylor was especially impressive to me. At the end, Will was essentially 3 picks away from having a great bracket. Some other picks throughout the article that particularly stood out for me were Arkansas over Kansas and Michigan State over Marquette.

After having read this article, I was inspired. Will spoke of a magical complete tournament data document, which I devoted hours recreating. I downloaded all of the Kenpom pre-tournament data since the 2001 season and plugged in tournament results in order to create a complete dataset which contains trends, statistics, and results from the previous 22 NCAA men’s basketball tournaments.

From there, I compiled rating systems and metrics in order to project the best possible selections, all while encompassing the trends that Will included in his article into one complete, customizable output. In order to validate the various outputs, I tested the rankings against the results of previous tournaments, all of which were highly successful in predicting some of the best selections. For example, the rating system correctly predicted 13 out of the Sweet Sixteen teams from the 2023 tournament, including perfect Sweet Sixteen matchups for the East (FAU, Tennessee, Kansas State, Michigan State) and the West (Arkansas, UConn, Gonzaga, UCLA) Regions.

Here’s a sample of the output of the code using 2023 tournament data to better understand what we’re working with. For the 1st pod in the South Region, it outputs that both Alabama and West Virginia are good choices from the given pod. It also outputs the probability that each team in the given pod reaches the Sweet Sixteen, the Elite Eight, and the Final Four. Then, it prompts the user to make their selections for each game, including the probability that each team wins the given game. Using this example, Alabama had a 97 percent chance of beating Texas A&M-CC. The user is able to continue doing this until the bracket is completed, with various types of information throughout the output. At the beginning, a ranking of the most likely upsets based on historical trends is given and they’re also highlighted when the user has to select a team for these games. It also provides advice for selecting “toss-up games”, or games between 7- and 10-seeds, or 8- and 9-seeds. 

Obviously, no bracket will be perfect, even with this app. However, using this app as a supplement, I hope to be able to output selections that will put users (i.e., myself and some friends) in the best position to win bracket pools in March. We’ll see what happens in practice later in March, but since I’ve put in this work to create the project, I want to put it to use. So, every week, a couple days after my weekly bracket projection update, I intend on filling out my bracket using my app as a supplement, and then randomizing the results of the bracket to see how well I would do in a bracket pool.

So, here’s the first edition. I’m linking the Google Sheet here with my bracket because it might be easier to look at, but I’m also adding images of each region as I break it down. As a bit of a key, every team that is on the line was my selection. Green means that I was right, red means that I was wrong, and the team above a team in red is the team that actually ended up winning that game.

Purdue vs. Texas A&M is an easy matchup. Nevada is worse than Texas A&M according to the rankings and Purdue is easily the best team in the pod. Surely nothing will go wrong this year… right? From there, the code actually triggers an upset alert for both Kentucky (9th most likely) and Clemson (4th most likely) in this pod, but I decide against it to play the numbers, and I end up failing both as a result. Kentucky and Clemson are given as the most likely teams from the pod with S16 ratings of 3.70 and 3.21 (out of 5), which should generally be a red flag that the algorithm isn’t too sure about this pod, which is exactly why I put Purdue to go through to the Elite 8 on the top side of the Midwest Region. Duke is the heavy favorite out of Pod 3, with a S16 rating of 5.26, so that’s an easy pick. Nebraska is the 3rd most likely upset, so I follow the algorithm with this one. According to the output, Utah is the most likely team from Pod 4, so that’s who I have for my S16 team. It ends up not mattering at all because I select the wrong R32 teams from this pod. Western Kentucky is flagged as the 12th-most likely upset from the field, so it was certainly a possibility. From there, I went with Purdue and Duke as my E8 teams, both of which had the best probabilities for their seeds. The algorithm actually told me to choose Purdue, but I decided to pick Duke under the assumption that many other brackets would likely select Purdue, meaning Duke would be a great value pick. Unfortunately, in this simulation, I clearly should’ve listened to the algorithm for the Midwest Region Winner.

The West Region was a very strong region for me. The algorithm gave Villanova better odds as the team from Pod 1, but North Carolina was also indicated as a team likely to make it to the Sweet 16, and I ended up going against the algorithm with this one in a way. North Carolina to the Sweet 16. Even though Indiana State was the 7th most likely upset, I went with BYU over Marquette in the Round of 32. My first slip up in this region was going against Oregon, which was the 8th most likely upset in the field. But Baylor to the Sweet 16 came true. From there, Arizona over Michigan State was a sound pick and one I was willing to make. Again, I went against the algorithm in choosing BYU. My reasoning was that Villanova was the more likely team to make it to the S16 according to the algorithm, so I would take my chances with BYU in case North Carolina was tripped up. Then, I went Arizona in the E8 and F4, both of which were recommended by the algorithm. Unfortunately, the latter was simply wrong in the simulation. All in all, nothing too major to be upset about with the West Region.

The South Region was my joint-worst performance for my R32 selections, but my selections after that were perfect. For the toss-up games, I went with what the algorithm gave me and sometimes those are just wrong, and there’s not much you can do about that. Both Saint Mary’s and Boise State were flagged as upset alerts over Alabama and Iowa State respectively, which was the reason why I went with Creighton and Illinois in those pods. Both Alabama and Iowa State were actually given the edge for those pods, but I went with my gut and chose Creighton and Illinois in those instances because of the possible upsets. From there, it was simply chalk, and that’s what the algorithm put out. Overall, really good region, and my first correct Final Four selection.

The East Region was similarly very strong. All 3 options of UConn, Texas Tech, and Wake Forest were spit out as possibilities for the first pod, so I went with the strongest probability for the S16, which was clearly held by UConn. Texas Tech was the only slip up in the R32 for this region. The Dayton-Grand Canyon-Memphis-Samford pod was actually a very intriguing pod and I’m sure would genuinely be thoroughly entertaining if it were to happen in March. Grand Canyon was flagged as the most likely upset in the field, and Samford was flagged as the second most likely upset in the field, which is absolutely wild. Both Dayton and Grand Canyon actually had better S16 ratings than Memphis and Samford as well. I went with my gut for this pod because it was very difficult to see how it would end up, so I went with Dayton to the S16. New Mexico was also triggered as the 6th most likely upset, and Auburn was really a no-brainer, with a 92 percent win probability. Auburn to the Sweet Sixteen. TCU was marked as the most likely team to the S16, but I stuck with Wisconsin, which worked out in this case. Of the bunch, UConn was the most likely to make it to the Final Four, even though they were the 3rd most likely to make it out of their pod in general. As a result, I went with Auburn to the Final Four and, in hindsight, should’ve probably gone with Dayton too, but that pod was volatile as it was. At the end of the day, Auburn becomes my second correct Final Four selection. Not bad at all.

This is where it falls apart. Coming into Final Four weekend, I would probably be pretty happy. 2 teams in the Final Four and likely a chance at winning my bracket pool. Unfortunately, my Arizona pick didn’t matter, and my Houston pick was just flat wrong.

41 out of 63 picks is really good. I had 14 correct S16 picks and 6 correct E8 picks. If something similar to this exercise happened in March with my bracket, I would probably be pretty pleased. Sometimes, that’s just how the cookie crumbles, and you can’t win them all. Although, I will say, if this result panned out in March, I wouldn’t care about my bracket since I would’ve seen the Boilers win it all in Phoenix. One fan’s pretty decent bracket is another fan’s pure elation.The plan is to repeat this process weekly until March hits. If you have any questions, hit me up @TSBBracketology on Twitter and I might give some more info in the next edition.

Jan. 15 Bracketology

Through games played on Jan. 14, 2024. AQs in bold. Last Four In in italics.

1 seeds: Purdue, Houston, Connecticut, North Carolina

2 seeds: Arizona, Wisconsin, Kansas, Tennessee

3 seeds: Baylor, Duke, Illinois, Auburn

4 seeds: Creighton, Kentucky, Marquette, Memphis

5 seeds: Alabama, Clemson, Dayton, BYU

6 seeds: Oklahoma, San Diego State, Iowa State, Utah State

7 seeds: Utah, Florida Atlantic, TCU, Colorado State 

8 seeds: Villanova, Texas Tech, St. John's, Texas A&M

9 seeds: Mississippi State, Nevada, Mississippi, Wake Forest

10 seeds: Michigan State, Cincinnati, Princeton, South Carolina

11 seeds: Nebraska, Oregon, Seton Hall, Boise State, Northwestern, New Mexico

12 seeds: Indiana State, Grand Canyon, Saint Mary's, McNeese State

13 seeds: UC Irvine, Appalachian State, Samford, Akron

14 seeds: Drexel, Vermont, High Point, Eastern Washington

15 seeds: Western Kentucky, Lipscomb, Youngstown State, Colgate

16 seeds: Quinnipiac, Southern, South Dakota State, Merrimack, Western Illinois, NC Central

First Four Byes: Cincinnati, South Carolina, Nebraska, Oregon

Last Four In: Seton Hall, Boise State, Northwestern, New Mexico

First Four Out: Ohio State, Florida, Miami FL, Texas

Next Four Out: Providence, Kansas State, Gonzaga, Colorado

Jan. 9, 2024 Bracketology (Updated AQs)

Through games played on Jan. 8, 2024. AQs in bold. Last Four In in italics.

1 seeds: Purdue, Houston, Kansas, Arizona

2 seeds: Connecticut, Tennessee, North Carolina, Marquette

3 seeds: Illinois, Clemson, Wisconsin, Kentucky

4 seeds: BYU, Memphis, Baylor, San Diego State

5 seeds: Colorado State, Auburn, Oklahoma, Duke

6 seeds: Florida Atlantic, Creighton, Utah, Alabama

7 seeds: Ohio State, Dayton, Texas A&M, Iowa State

8 seeds: Providence, Villanova, Colorado, Nevada

9 seeds: Mississippi, Utah State, Gonzaga, Michigan State

10 seeds: Mississippi State, Florida, South Carolina, James Madison

11 seeds: Grand Canyon, Texas, Texas Tech, Cincinnati

12 seeds: St. John's, Oregon, Miami FL, New Mexico, Princeton, Indiana State

13 seeds: McNeese State, UC Irvine, Charleston, Samford

14 seeds: Akron, Weber State, Morehead State, Purdue Fort Wayne

15 seeds: Vermont, High Point, Western Kentucky, Colgate

16 seeds: Lipscomb, Quinnipiac, Southern, South Dakota State, North Carolina Central, Merrimack

First Four Byes: South Carolina, Texas, Texas Tech, Cincinnati

Last Four In: St. John's, Oregon, Miami FL, New Mexico

First Four Out: Nebraska, NC State, Virginia, Kansas State

Next Four Out: Northwestern, Wake Forest, Seton Hall, Butler

Not many changes, just decided to add my fix to my AQs.

Jan. 8, 2024 Bracketology

Through games played on Jan. 7, 2024. AQs in bold. Last Four In in italics.

1 seeds: Purdue, Houston, Kansas, Arizona

2 seeds: Connecticut, Tennessee, North Carolina, Marquette

3 seeds: Illinois, Clemson, Wisconsin, Kentucky

4 seeds: BYU, Memphis, Baylor, San Diego State

5 seeds: Colorado State, Auburn, Oklahoma, Duke

6 seeds: Florida Atlantic, Creighton, Utah, Alabama

7 seeds: Ohio State, Dayton, Texas A&M, Iowa State

8 seeds: Providence, Villanova, Colorado, Nevada

9 seeds: Mississippi, Utah State, Gonzaga, Michigan State

10 seeds: Mississippi State, Florida, South Carolina, James Madison

11 seeds: Grand Canyon, Texas, Texas Tech, Cincinnati

12 seeds: St. John's, Oregon, Miami FL, New Mexico, Princeton, Indiana State

13 seeds: McNeese State, Louisiana Tech, UC Irvine, UNC Wilmington

14 seeds: Weber State, Purdue Fort Wayne, Samford, Akron

15 seeds: Vermont, High Point, Morehead State, Colgate

16 seeds: Lipscomb, Canisius, Denver, Norfolk State, Merrimack, Southern

First Four Byes: South Carolina, Texas, Texas Tech, Cincinnati

Last Four In: St. John's, Oregon, Miami FL, New Mexico

First Four Out: Nebraska, NC State, Virginia, Kansas State

Next Four Out: Northwestern, Wake Forest, Seton Hall, Butler

Jan. 1, 2024 Bracketology

Through games played on Jan. 1, 2024. AQs in bold. Last Four In in italics.

1 seeds: Purdue, Houston, Kansas, Arizona

2 seeds: Connecticut, Marquette, Tennessee, Clemson

3 seeds: BYU, Illinois, North Carolina, Wisconsin

4 seeds: Memphis, Baylor, Kentucky, Auburn

5 seeds: Colorado State, San Diego State, Oklahoma, Florida Atlantic

6 seeds: Duke, Creighton, Utah, Texas A&M

7 seeds: Ohio State, Alabama, Iowa State, Villanova

8 seeds: Providence, Colorado, Mississippi, Dayton

9 seeds: Gonzaga, Nevada, Mississippi State, Texas

10 seeds: New Mexico, Utah State, Virginia, Florida

11 seeds: James Madison, Michigan State, Cincinnati, South Carolina, TCU

12 seeds: Texas Tech, Grand Canyon, Nebraska, Princeton, Indiana State

13 seeds: McNeese State, Louisiana Tech, UC Irvine, UNC Wilmington

14 seeds: Weber State, Purdue Fort Wayne, Samford, Akron

15 seeds: Vermont, High Point, Morehead State, Colgate

16 seeds: Lipscomb, Canisius, Denver, Norfolk State, Merrimack, TX Southern

First Four Byes: Virginia, Florida, Michigan State, Cincinnati

Last Four In: South Carolina, TCU, Texas Tech, Nebraska

First Four Out: Washington, Miami FL, Northwestern, Butler

Next Four Out: Arkansas, Kansas State, St. John's, St. Joseph's